Again, since there's a lot being slung around, I guess I should take a moment and define what I'm saying.
I am not saying that this gunman was filled with the thoughts of the Tea Party and conservatives, steeped in the mythology, and fed on the political rhetoric until it came pouring out the end of his glock. I'm not even saying he's a disciple of the more coarse elements of the right.
If, once he starts talking or we find out through investigation, that there is a direct link, I will be very amazed.
At best, for that connection, he will be considered a "Lone Wolf." That is, somebody who never was really a part of any organization but hung out at the edges. Who believed it was their mission to do so and to handle the dirtier side of things while maintaining a distance from the organization/leadership.
What I am saying is that the atmosphere created by that rhetoric, the fetishising of firearms, and changing the political discourse from one of compromise to revolution opens the door to such actions. That is, it becomes possible. Such actions are not so far to the fringe. That because people talk in this manner, the possibility of such actions become greater.
Don't believe me?
It's exactly the same argument against giving full informational sex education, and free condoms, to teenagers.
And the people who are protesting way too much are the same people who make the same argument to either end sex education or declare it should only be abstinence only. Because, you know, talking about sex openly and frankly might give people ideas that they may want to try it themselves. Just like talking in the terms of "if not ballots, then bullets" and "second amendment solutions" and some of the even more softer links (such as the "Help me defeat Giffords, come and shoot a fully automatic M16").
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Linkee-poo Twofer while stuck in Ohio - no Florida for me
Tobias has a graphic that will be very telling in about 5 years from now. How much the US is betting on clean energy compared to how much China is betting. Yeah. To quote Bender, "We're boned." No, really. Given the previous administration's (and the current conservatives now in charge of the House) attitude's toward real science, and that one of the main criticisms of putting an offshore wind farm in Lake Erie is that the turbines would be made in China, we are behind the preverbal 8-ball. I'll also call you to the "public vs private" difference between the countries. So, how good do you feel about that American Exceptionalism now?
Because I was pointing out some things on the right concerning the Giffords shooting, as I said with another links, there is enough idiocy to cover both sides of the aisle. That said, I find it interesting that some lawyers on the talking head shows are debating the reason the judge was there at the event. See, if a federal employee is shot in the course of their official duties, that's the death penalty. Here's something, one of Gifford's staff aids was shot and killed. They're also federal employees. It doesn't matter why the judge was there now.
Because I was pointing out some things on the right concerning the Giffords shooting, as I said with another links, there is enough idiocy to cover both sides of the aisle. That said, I find it interesting that some lawyers on the talking head shows are debating the reason the judge was there at the event. See, if a federal employee is shot in the course of their official duties, that's the death penalty. Here's something, one of Gifford's staff aids was shot and killed. They're also federal employees. It doesn't matter why the judge was there now.
Just as an example
In case any one of my conservative friends are looking for examples of what Liberals are calling the coarsening of the dialog, Townhall Magazine just named their "50 Most Dangerous Liberals." There's an interesting example. A "mainstream" publication (put to bed before the shooting this past weekend, so there was no chance to change the headline) that lists liberals as "dangerous." Not, "strongest liberal voices" or "liberal movers and shakers," no, they have to (again) demonize the opposition and raise the "red flag" for conservatives. Those liberals, see, they're dangerous. Just like criminals.
Sure, a banal example, but again, a magazine meant for mass consumption and they can't keep from this kind of rhetoric. Unlike, say, a memo or internal communications that can be a bit more unguarded, this is meant to be in the public sphere.
I guess I should be happy they didn't add either "unpatriotic" or "non-American" to the title.
Sure, a banal example, but again, a magazine meant for mass consumption and they can't keep from this kind of rhetoric. Unlike, say, a memo or internal communications that can be a bit more unguarded, this is meant to be in the public sphere.
I guess I should be happy they didn't add either "unpatriotic" or "non-American" to the title.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Yes, Virginia
There are idiots on all sides. There's one thing in condemning speech, it's a whole other thing to make such speech criminal, when it hasn't been before. Can we just all agree it's in bad taste, inciteful and incendiary and move on?
Oh, and speaking of idiots... (sent by Dan)
Oh, and speaking of idiots... (sent by Dan)
Drilled too deep
Dear Senator Lamar Alexander,
Regarding your statement to the press,
Taken from here.
It also doesn't fit the profile of your typical liberal or "lefty" either, if that's the inference your making. Which I think you're trying to do. Considering the Right and the Tea Party claim to be experts on both Socialism, Communism and Nazi-ism, I would think that they would have studied those seminal documents of the movements to know just what they're talking about. You know, as long as your weren't pulling rabbits out of your nether-regions and using terms that you have no idea what they mean. So, I would think that Tea Party members who spout drivel such as the "president's socialist ideas" would have read such works. Or I'm left to conclude that you're just idiots and bullies. You wouldn't want me to make that inference, would you?
Dear Mark Mekler,
If you want to say that you find it appalling that anyone would tie the shootings to the hightened rhetoric of your movement, or the glorification of firearms and violence and the attendant language that also flows from your movement, I can understand. Even to say you "condemn such linkages," I can understand you're argument. However, to say sinks to the level of evil and also call those who say it "scumbags," well, sir, it just let's me know you don't know WTF you're doing. And you're a lawyer? I've known and worked with plenty of lawyers, some of them on the opposite side of the table in contentious issues, and none of them publicly use such idiotic and inflammatory terms. Seriously, are you really conscious of what is coming out of your mouth or of your actions? Because it doesn't appear that you are. You're calling not only the local sheriff, but national figures like the FBI's Robert Mueller that. Do you really want that?
With all do respect, please crawl back to your play pen and let the adults handle the conversation.
To both of you, please make it harder for those of us on the left to find examples of your extreme ignorance and hate. Right now it's all to easy. And in case you're missing it, we're not tying this person to you, but we are saying that the level of discourse and imagery that you and yours have brought to the table is creating the atmosphere that such things become easier to reach. I know you probably don't understand that, because to do so means you need to go beyond yourself and think of others and how you're affecting them.
If this was a blog flame war, I'd use the rhetorical trick of, "So, hit a nerve did we?"
Not yours, truly,
Me
Regarding your statement to the press,
"What we know about this individual, for example, is that he was reading Karl Marx, and reading Hitler, and burning the American flag," Alexander said. "That's not the profile of a typical tea party member if that's the inference that's being made."
Taken from here.
It also doesn't fit the profile of your typical liberal or "lefty" either, if that's the inference your making. Which I think you're trying to do. Considering the Right and the Tea Party claim to be experts on both Socialism, Communism and Nazi-ism, I would think that they would have studied those seminal documents of the movements to know just what they're talking about. You know, as long as your weren't pulling rabbits out of your nether-regions and using terms that you have no idea what they mean. So, I would think that Tea Party members who spout drivel such as the "president's socialist ideas" would have read such works. Or I'm left to conclude that you're just idiots and bullies. You wouldn't want me to make that inference, would you?
Dear Mark Mekler,
If you want to say that you find it appalling that anyone would tie the shootings to the hightened rhetoric of your movement, or the glorification of firearms and violence and the attendant language that also flows from your movement, I can understand. Even to say you "condemn such linkages," I can understand you're argument. However, to say sinks to the level of evil and also call those who say it "scumbags," well, sir, it just let's me know you don't know WTF you're doing. And you're a lawyer? I've known and worked with plenty of lawyers, some of them on the opposite side of the table in contentious issues, and none of them publicly use such idiotic and inflammatory terms. Seriously, are you really conscious of what is coming out of your mouth or of your actions? Because it doesn't appear that you are. You're calling not only the local sheriff, but national figures like the FBI's Robert Mueller that. Do you really want that?
With all do respect, please crawl back to your play pen and let the adults handle the conversation.
To both of you, please make it harder for those of us on the left to find examples of your extreme ignorance and hate. Right now it's all to easy. And in case you're missing it, we're not tying this person to you, but we are saying that the level of discourse and imagery that you and yours have brought to the table is creating the atmosphere that such things become easier to reach. I know you probably don't understand that, because to do so means you need to go beyond yourself and think of others and how you're affecting them.
If this was a blog flame war, I'd use the rhetorical trick of, "So, hit a nerve did we?"
Not yours, truly,
Me
Words are the currency of thought
George Orwell was correct in his views of language, power and thought in 1984.
Because it seems relevant to some discussions going on (and because it's now becoming a knee-jerk defense, mostly from one side of the political spectrum). A criticism of speech (print, verbal, blog, whatever) is not censorship of said speech. I understand that some people can be confused on that issue given their world view and their "absolutist" stances on ideas.
So, if you would say something like, "I believe the sky is blue," and I would say, "You're wrong, it's azure," this doesn't mean I think you should be muzzled and prevented from providing any thoughts on the matter of color (of the sky or anything else). Even if I should say, "Your ability to recognize color selection is ignorant and until you learn better you should STFU and sit down," that isn't censorship.
Now, if I would try and make a law that only people who can discern a delta-E of 3 (That's a color sensitivity term that is a scientific determination on who close two colors are, most people can readily see a delta-E of 18-20, and if the colors are next to each other a delta-E of 10, highly trained people can discern down to a delta-E of 3. That's where mine is at, BTW. Below a delta-E of 3, it's presumed only machines can discern the difference.) should be allowed to give their opinion of what a color is, that would be censorship. If I would exert my minimal influence to make sure that anybody who didn't have the same level of capability couldn't have their opinion of color given to the public through the print, digital, or broadcast media, that would also be an example of censorship. If I would remove the word "blue" from the lexicon to keep you from making such a statement, that would also be a form of censorship.
But standing up and saying, "You're wrong, that's azure," or "that's an ignorant statement," or even, "you have no idea just what you're saying," isn't an example of censorship. Even if I say, "I'm not going to listen to you," isn't an example of censorship. And to the far end, if I say, "What you've been saying about the color of the sky has ruined the ability of others to correctly name said color and you should really rethink how you discuss color before you do any more damage," isn't censorship.
To consider such statements as censorship is to fail at discourse.
Because it seems relevant to some discussions going on (and because it's now becoming a knee-jerk defense, mostly from one side of the political spectrum). A criticism of speech (print, verbal, blog, whatever) is not censorship of said speech. I understand that some people can be confused on that issue given their world view and their "absolutist" stances on ideas.
So, if you would say something like, "I believe the sky is blue," and I would say, "You're wrong, it's azure," this doesn't mean I think you should be muzzled and prevented from providing any thoughts on the matter of color (of the sky or anything else). Even if I should say, "Your ability to recognize color selection is ignorant and until you learn better you should STFU and sit down," that isn't censorship.
Now, if I would try and make a law that only people who can discern a delta-E of 3 (That's a color sensitivity term that is a scientific determination on who close two colors are, most people can readily see a delta-E of 18-20, and if the colors are next to each other a delta-E of 10, highly trained people can discern down to a delta-E of 3. That's where mine is at, BTW. Below a delta-E of 3, it's presumed only machines can discern the difference.) should be allowed to give their opinion of what a color is, that would be censorship. If I would exert my minimal influence to make sure that anybody who didn't have the same level of capability couldn't have their opinion of color given to the public through the print, digital, or broadcast media, that would also be an example of censorship. If I would remove the word "blue" from the lexicon to keep you from making such a statement, that would also be a form of censorship.
But standing up and saying, "You're wrong, that's azure," or "that's an ignorant statement," or even, "you have no idea just what you're saying," isn't an example of censorship. Even if I say, "I'm not going to listen to you," isn't an example of censorship. And to the far end, if I say, "What you've been saying about the color of the sky has ruined the ability of others to correctly name said color and you should really rethink how you discuss color before you do any more damage," isn't censorship.
To consider such statements as censorship is to fail at discourse.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Dark thoughts for a Sunday Morning
Here's something that I'll bet you never expected of me, I agree with Speaker Boehner, an attack on one is an attack on all who serve. That I agree with him probably won't happen again for a long time.
Just a comment in general, there is a big difference in saying that "it'll be hand to hand combat to get our agenda through the congress" and "if ballots don't work, maybe bullets will" or even "second amendment solutions." If you can't recognize that, I'm not sure we can have a rational discussion.
I said earlier in this whole bruhaha that certain elements were playing with fire, not understanding the potential consequences. Maybe now people might become a little more sober. Given the responses I've seen so far, I don't have high hopes.
Just a comment in general, there is a big difference in saying that "it'll be hand to hand combat to get our agenda through the congress" and "if ballots don't work, maybe bullets will" or even "second amendment solutions." If you can't recognize that, I'm not sure we can have a rational discussion.
I said earlier in this whole bruhaha that certain elements were playing with fire, not understanding the potential consequences. Maybe now people might become a little more sober. Given the responses I've seen so far, I don't have high hopes.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Notes on the Job Thing
So, I've never gone through and closed out my accounts with the various job search sites. Consider it just market research. While normally the auto emailed job listing never actually had any jobs in my field (related, but not really design jobs) while I was looking, I now see a few.
Dear employer,
When your job description reads...
it makes me think that you don't know WTF you're doing. Every design job can read exactly the same. It's two decades since the desktop revolution. If you're not proficient with computers, you haven't worked in this industry for 15 years. Everybody is looking to top-notch design skills. Who looks for sloppy designers? The "thorough knowledge of print production" is about the only thing that tells me what this job actually entails. And, again, if you're a designer and don't know ink on paper, try greeting al Wal-Mart. This statement is like the McDonald's people asking if you want fries with that. Finally, must be able to work on multiple projects, well-organized, and meet tight deadlines, what design job doesn't require these things? No, seriously, where do these people work that these aren't the bare minimum qualifications?
And then there's the new links showing up for placement agencies. "Tired of applying to jobs? Let a professional do it for you." Unfortunately the majority of these employee pre-paid schemes. Just as a hint, most of the reputable services are either employer paid, or paid after you get your first paycheck.
Plus, with all the "discouraged workers" out there, I've always wondered just what they're doing? How do they live, pay bills, make mortgage/rent, etc? It just makes me wonder.
Dear employer,
When your job description reads...
...needs talented pro ready to work in a dynamic creative environment. Must be proficient with computers, posses top-caliber design skills, thorough knowledge of print production and the ability to work on multiple projects simultaneously. Must be well-organized and comfortable working with tight deadlines...
it makes me think that you don't know WTF you're doing. Every design job can read exactly the same. It's two decades since the desktop revolution. If you're not proficient with computers, you haven't worked in this industry for 15 years. Everybody is looking to top-notch design skills. Who looks for sloppy designers? The "thorough knowledge of print production" is about the only thing that tells me what this job actually entails. And, again, if you're a designer and don't know ink on paper, try greeting al Wal-Mart. This statement is like the McDonald's people asking if you want fries with that. Finally, must be able to work on multiple projects, well-organized, and meet tight deadlines, what design job doesn't require these things? No, seriously, where do these people work that these aren't the bare minimum qualifications?
And then there's the new links showing up for placement agencies. "Tired of applying to jobs? Let a professional do it for you." Unfortunately the majority of these employee pre-paid schemes. Just as a hint, most of the reputable services are either employer paid, or paid after you get your first paycheck.
Plus, with all the "discouraged workers" out there, I've always wondered just what they're doing? How do they live, pay bills, make mortgage/rent, etc? It just makes me wonder.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Linkee-poo is considering a political 12-step program
I keep trying to find other things to write about, I do. At least the first one isn't political
It seems bad design isn't just related to print materials. If you're designing for humans to interface with your application, you might want to read the f#$%ing human interface guidelines. Seriously. A lot of work went into those guidelines, and it's not like they charge extra for it. (sent by Dan)
What happens when you let the public drive your intelligence/police work. So while technically he was arrested for failing to cooperate fully with the flight attendants, it was over a frickin' bagel. Some of my conservative friends like to bewail the new FCC regulation of "Net Neutrality" and yet when we allowed pilots to carry firearms and made it illegal to not comply with a flight attendant, nary a peep. The guy may have even gotten obstreperous, but 1) no questioning of the source (an untrained source) and 2) it's a frickin' bagel. What, we didn't like he violated our good sense by not bringing a box of Krispy Kremes instead? (also sent by Dan) Or, you know, you could go all ballistic over some signs that encourage you to snitch on your neighbors.
Because, you know, those of us progressives just don't listen to the other side. Instead, we invite them to speak against the law we're signing into effect. You know, instead of making them stand in a "Free Speech Zone" three blocks away and behind a parking deck.
So much for actual openness. Then again, he is using the work differently than you or I do. He's talking about "amendments" as "openness" equating an "open process" to an "open bill." I wonder when he'll backtrack on the 3 day reading period where everything is open to the public. Oh, wait, he hasn't even put that in place yet (and in all the other hoopla, he hasn't mentioned it at all after winning the majority). Good thing we still have the Thomas tool from the Library of Congress. Like we did before. And, Eric says it better than I do, anyway.
But, hey, you know there's always those Freudian slips. I know. Big words, they're so confusing sometimes.
The other day I mentioned the #2 reason why I dropped my Republican affiliation. Here's an example of reason #1. The "social conservatives" are running the show now. I understand how many people who are gay are also conservatives. I mean, it's a good line and all. But someday they'll have to come to grips with the fact that the Republican Party left those values they hold dear a long time ago and instead went about courting the social conservative vote (who were people who also didn't get involved in politics before, sound familiar?) during the Reagan era and missed that the looneys took the ship over and no longer really care about conservative issues if there's a conflict with their social conservative views.
It seems bad design isn't just related to print materials. If you're designing for humans to interface with your application, you might want to read the f#$%ing human interface guidelines. Seriously. A lot of work went into those guidelines, and it's not like they charge extra for it. (sent by Dan)
What happens when you let the public drive your intelligence/police work. So while technically he was arrested for failing to cooperate fully with the flight attendants, it was over a frickin' bagel. Some of my conservative friends like to bewail the new FCC regulation of "Net Neutrality" and yet when we allowed pilots to carry firearms and made it illegal to not comply with a flight attendant, nary a peep. The guy may have even gotten obstreperous, but 1) no questioning of the source (an untrained source) and 2) it's a frickin' bagel. What, we didn't like he violated our good sense by not bringing a box of Krispy Kremes instead? (also sent by Dan) Or, you know, you could go all ballistic over some signs that encourage you to snitch on your neighbors.
Because, you know, those of us progressives just don't listen to the other side. Instead, we invite them to speak against the law we're signing into effect. You know, instead of making them stand in a "Free Speech Zone" three blocks away and behind a parking deck.
So much for actual openness. Then again, he is using the work differently than you or I do. He's talking about "amendments" as "openness" equating an "open process" to an "open bill." I wonder when he'll backtrack on the 3 day reading period where everything is open to the public. Oh, wait, he hasn't even put that in place yet (and in all the other hoopla, he hasn't mentioned it at all after winning the majority). Good thing we still have the Thomas tool from the Library of Congress. Like we did before. And, Eric says it better than I do, anyway.
But, hey, you know there's always those Freudian slips. I know. Big words, they're so confusing sometimes.
The other day I mentioned the #2 reason why I dropped my Republican affiliation. Here's an example of reason #1. The "social conservatives" are running the show now. I understand how many people who are gay are also conservatives. I mean, it's a good line and all. But someday they'll have to come to grips with the fact that the Republican Party left those values they hold dear a long time ago and instead went about courting the social conservative vote (who were people who also didn't get involved in politics before, sound familiar?) during the Reagan era and missed that the looneys took the ship over and no longer really care about conservative issues if there's a conflict with their social conservative views.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
In case you were wondering
The crazy as batshit continues today. I'd make a pithy comment about how this at least gives the comedians a full employment clause with the new legislature and that may be a few more jobs, but I have to live in this world. And right now it's just making me sad.
Linkee-poo just shakes it's shaggy head and walks away
To make up for my sin of no political links yesterday, apparently everybody decided to go batshit crazy.
Hey, it's like the early 2000's all over again. Remember "50 plus 1 is a mandate"? Ah, good times. And here they are again.
To those that will argue, "It's just what the Dems did." Uh, no. HCR is to the right of what Trent Lott proposed as a counter to Clinton's Heath Care Reform. If the Dems "did it too", we'd all be wondering when the Public Option would kick in. Also, the Finance Reform has how many hundred Republican sponsored amendments in committee? Yeah. Just goes to the point that conservatives, when in power, are about that power. Liberals, when in power, are about governance. You may disagree with that direction (initially I was going to say, "helping real people with real problems," but that's a qualitative statement that's open to even more interpretation). But at least it is a governance. Where as the other side just calls anybody who disagrees with them either liars, incompetent, or "they just aren't looking at the whole picture."
And because I'm just tired of the trite "What the People Want" and "the Public Doesn't Like Congress/Democratic Rule" and it all being a one sided argument. Well karma comes knocking in a Rasmussen Poll. Read that again, a Rassmussen Poll. You know, the people who ask, "are you upset about anything the President has done" and lumps those into "those who think the President is doing a bad job." Also notice that those who think a Republican Congress would do better has gone down since the election. They have barely taken power (and in this poll, they hadn't yet), and already their numbers are "tanking" (that term used according to Hannity Statistics).
And I'm sure this will get the Bread and Circuses crowd. However, it's a dangerous precedent, and one based on intentional lying. And this new Congress is unfortunately filled to the brim with these kinds of stories (people appointed into positions of power who have no business being there, including some conservatives who are now chairmen of committees that have investigated them in the past, which would be like putting Charlie Rangle in charge of the Ethics Committee). However we now have a party in power that feels changing the name of the Energy and Labor Committee to Energy and Workforce Committee is a priority. So, how much did that cost to have new letterhead and business cards printed.
Oh, and the new Conservative House Leadership is going to cut the House Memeber's budgets by 5%. Big. Frickin'. Woop. Want to get close to what we in your local governments have been facing. Our income last year, while better than we expected (by about 1.5%), is still running at 50% of our budget three years ago. Cut your budgets by 30%, or you ain't whistling' dixie.
Add another voice to the growing cacophony on the disparity of wealth in our country. Yes, it's another progressive. In case you're wondering, this topic was #2 on why I became disillusioned with the conservative movement. A rising tide may lift all boats, but if you're chained to the bottom, you drown. And even if you're on one of the boats, or hanging on to the ladder, the water level doesn't change for you. Only those who have a vested interest in the tides gain and they buy bigger and bigger boats. You also can pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't even have boots to begin with.
And can I just say, that for all this talk of "we should be focused on jobs and doing something that can help people" and then focusing on repealing HCR which has zero chance of not being vetoed (without the votes for an override) if it even passes the Senate and some other priorities of the new Congress before they get to anything that will actually help (which they haven't said what that would be, but promised it) until late February? Yeah, thanks guys.
And lastly, we have Ronald Reagan on socialized medicine (aka Medicare). Say, has any of that fear mongering come true? And Medicare has been going for how long now? And, yes, doesn't that rhetoric sound awfully familiar? Why, yes, it does. Especially the line, "we'll tell our children stories about when men were free." Aren't we the free-est nation on Earth? Why, yes, I hear that too. From those same mouths that spouted the other things as well. Awfully slow damn socialist revolution if you ask me. They must be out getting coffee.
Hey, it's like the early 2000's all over again. Remember "50 plus 1 is a mandate"? Ah, good times. And here they are again.
"(on the HCR repeal), the GOP hasn't (but Democrats have) asked the CBO to score its health care repeal bill. Republicans know what that score will say: that repeal will blow up the deficit. But they don't buy the numbers, and, whenever those numbers conflict with their policy priorities, they'll ignore them."
To those that will argue, "It's just what the Dems did." Uh, no. HCR is to the right of what Trent Lott proposed as a counter to Clinton's Heath Care Reform. If the Dems "did it too", we'd all be wondering when the Public Option would kick in. Also, the Finance Reform has how many hundred Republican sponsored amendments in committee? Yeah. Just goes to the point that conservatives, when in power, are about that power. Liberals, when in power, are about governance. You may disagree with that direction (initially I was going to say, "helping real people with real problems," but that's a qualitative statement that's open to even more interpretation). But at least it is a governance. Where as the other side just calls anybody who disagrees with them either liars, incompetent, or "they just aren't looking at the whole picture."
And because I'm just tired of the trite "What the People Want" and "the Public Doesn't Like Congress/Democratic Rule" and it all being a one sided argument. Well karma comes knocking in a Rasmussen Poll. Read that again, a Rassmussen Poll. You know, the people who ask, "are you upset about anything the President has done" and lumps those into "those who think the President is doing a bad job." Also notice that those who think a Republican Congress would do better has gone down since the election. They have barely taken power (and in this poll, they hadn't yet), and already their numbers are "tanking" (that term used according to Hannity Statistics).
And I'm sure this will get the Bread and Circuses crowd. However, it's a dangerous precedent, and one based on intentional lying. And this new Congress is unfortunately filled to the brim with these kinds of stories (people appointed into positions of power who have no business being there, including some conservatives who are now chairmen of committees that have investigated them in the past, which would be like putting Charlie Rangle in charge of the Ethics Committee). However we now have a party in power that feels changing the name of the Energy and Labor Committee to Energy and Workforce Committee is a priority. So, how much did that cost to have new letterhead and business cards printed.
Oh, and the new Conservative House Leadership is going to cut the House Memeber's budgets by 5%. Big. Frickin'. Woop. Want to get close to what we in your local governments have been facing. Our income last year, while better than we expected (by about 1.5%), is still running at 50% of our budget three years ago. Cut your budgets by 30%, or you ain't whistling' dixie.
Add another voice to the growing cacophony on the disparity of wealth in our country. Yes, it's another progressive. In case you're wondering, this topic was #2 on why I became disillusioned with the conservative movement. A rising tide may lift all boats, but if you're chained to the bottom, you drown. And even if you're on one of the boats, or hanging on to the ladder, the water level doesn't change for you. Only those who have a vested interest in the tides gain and they buy bigger and bigger boats. You also can pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't even have boots to begin with.
And can I just say, that for all this talk of "we should be focused on jobs and doing something that can help people" and then focusing on repealing HCR which has zero chance of not being vetoed (without the votes for an override) if it even passes the Senate and some other priorities of the new Congress before they get to anything that will actually help (which they haven't said what that would be, but promised it) until late February? Yeah, thanks guys.
And lastly, we have Ronald Reagan on socialized medicine (aka Medicare). Say, has any of that fear mongering come true? And Medicare has been going for how long now? And, yes, doesn't that rhetoric sound awfully familiar? Why, yes, it does. Especially the line, "we'll tell our children stories about when men were free." Aren't we the free-est nation on Earth? Why, yes, I hear that too. From those same mouths that spouted the other things as well. Awfully slow damn socialist revolution if you ask me. They must be out getting coffee.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Linkee-poo is thinking Orthodox Xmas should be a holiday, too
Holly Black on why unicorns are better than zombies. Can't we all just get along? (Grokked from Camille Alexa)
A few tips on electronic submissions. A little basic, but it never hurts to review some of the basics. We all have our Homer Simpson moments from time to time. (Grokked from Cat Rambo)
Donald Maass speculates on the contradictory nature of great fiction. I disagree a little what where he starts, that readers both want pablum and to be moved by what they read. I would classify it as two different classes of readers, not so much the same person. Or not so much two different people, but people in different stages. Sometimes you want to try the thing on the menu you can't pronounce, but sometimes you want those comfort foods. However, what he gets to at the end is something vital. It can be summed up with what my sister-in-law tells the kids, "Drive fast, take chances." You can't always go the easy road, and the first step of that journey is to realize you can't be easy with yourself.
Maybe that's my problem. With all the turmoil of the past year, I've been in search of comfort food and that's why I haven't pushed myself as hard as I should have been doing. Don't mind me, just a little internal psychoanalyzing going on here. Nothing to see. Move along now.
Dendrophilous links to Kaplan free books. If I'm anything, I'm wild about free books. Especially when Kaplan has a lot of medical text that are free. (Note, when browsing with my ipod, some of the titles they list as free, aren't listen in the iBook Store as free).
Jim Hines discusses his writing income. Understand, Jim is approaching "wildly successful" land (and has been at this from the other side of the "Published Author" line since early this century). He has not one, but two popular series out in the wilderness. So, yeah, don't quit your day thing. What he's making is nothing to sneeze at, mind you. Just with thinking about self employment taxes around 50%(a good round number to do your forecasting to), he's also not rolling in the dough. If you're a starting genre writer thinking you'll make it to the be profiled on "Cribs of the Famous" from your mad writing skilz, look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! (no slight on Jim, who is a genuinely nice guy, even through he writes jokes about nose picking)
Look, a linkee-poo where I didn't even mention politics. Oh, damn.
A few tips on electronic submissions. A little basic, but it never hurts to review some of the basics. We all have our Homer Simpson moments from time to time. (Grokked from Cat Rambo)
Donald Maass speculates on the contradictory nature of great fiction. I disagree a little what where he starts, that readers both want pablum and to be moved by what they read. I would classify it as two different classes of readers, not so much the same person. Or not so much two different people, but people in different stages. Sometimes you want to try the thing on the menu you can't pronounce, but sometimes you want those comfort foods. However, what he gets to at the end is something vital. It can be summed up with what my sister-in-law tells the kids, "Drive fast, take chances." You can't always go the easy road, and the first step of that journey is to realize you can't be easy with yourself.
Maybe that's my problem. With all the turmoil of the past year, I've been in search of comfort food and that's why I haven't pushed myself as hard as I should have been doing. Don't mind me, just a little internal psychoanalyzing going on here. Nothing to see. Move along now.
Dendrophilous links to Kaplan free books. If I'm anything, I'm wild about free books. Especially when Kaplan has a lot of medical text that are free. (Note, when browsing with my ipod, some of the titles they list as free, aren't listen in the iBook Store as free).
Jim Hines discusses his writing income. Understand, Jim is approaching "wildly successful" land (and has been at this from the other side of the "Published Author" line since early this century). He has not one, but two popular series out in the wilderness. So, yeah, don't quit your day thing. What he's making is nothing to sneeze at, mind you. Just with thinking about self employment taxes around 50%(a good round number to do your forecasting to), he's also not rolling in the dough. If you're a starting genre writer thinking you'll make it to the be profiled on "Cribs of the Famous" from your mad writing skilz, look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! (no slight on Jim, who is a genuinely nice guy, even through he writes jokes about nose picking)
Look, a linkee-poo where I didn't even mention politics. Oh, damn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)